A friendly challenge (details will explain, this one requires a bit of work)?

Question

I'd like you to read (or re-read) Matthew, but when you see the words "God" or "Father" I'd like you to substitute the word "Love".

My question: Is Jesus' message any less relevant if he was speaking of "Love" but used "God" and "Father" because they were more easily understood (and more compelling) for his audience?

I'll extend the expiration date for this question so you will have a week to read Matthew. You may want to mark this question to make it easier to find it when you're ready to answer.

I hope there are a few, amongst all those who are just seeking a quick 2 points, who will accept this challenge.

Thank you.

Answer 1

I have done this in the past. Similar things with other scriptures also, such putting your own name in place of "love" in 1 Corinthians 13 (see how well you measure up).

My main concern about the "love" substitution is that it could confuse people into thinking that Love is God. Which, of course, it not true. While God is Love, meaning that one of personality traces he has is that he loves, love is not God. If you try to substitue the emotion/disciple of love for a relationship with God himself, it will not work.

So it does make Matthew less relevant by removing the person of God and trying to substitute an emotion for him. Too many people already do that, thinking that if they are "loving" or "try to do the right thing" that they are having a relationship with God. They often are not.

A true relationship with God is a commitment to him that totally changed a person heart so that they are new inside. Then the "loving" and "doing the right thing" comes from them naturally.

Answer 2

Good question. I am a Sunday School Superintendent. We have been studying Matthew for about a month now. I think the sermon on the Mount (beatitudes) is some of the best preaching I have ever heard. It comes straight from the Master Himself. I have often thought the some thing, replace God with love. In most places it fits well.

Answer 3

You said to change the word Father or God to love in matthew, what a silly challenge. Turn to Matt.27:46 where Jesus was on the cross, The way you want to put it, Then Jesus would be saying My love, My love, why hast thou forsaken me. But the bible says My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me. I don't need a week to answer your question, but only 5 minutes. And yes I have read Matthew over & over again the last 36 yrs. Jesus knew exactly who he was talking to.

Answer 4

I have done this exercise before, as an exploration of the concept of "LOVE", and as a way to examine how much I love (or not) other people.

Actually, however, if one removes all personal references to God from Jesus' quotes, and inserts the word "LOVE" in its place, I do believe the message suffers. "LOVE" is, as a concept, too easily misunderstood, too vague in its definition. I can personally name at least 4 kinds of "love": friendship, familial, erotic, and agape'. Which "LOVE" would be best used as a substitute for "GOD"?

"Love" needs an anchor, or base, to operate from, in order to be best expressed. It needs a person as both its founder and its recipient.

Replacing references to God with "love" raises another challenge: the problem of authority. "Father" is not the only way Jesus referred to God. He also referred to the LORD, or master of creation, the ultimate judge of men. How can "love" substitute for the personification of this office? It can't. It can show the motive behind the actions of the judge, but it can't BE the judge.

Try your substitution here, in Matthew 10:32-33.

"So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Replacing "Father" with "Love" makes the entire point of this passage change. "My Father" is an authoritative figure, someone who passes out judgement and reward. "My Love" is by comparison, a feminine counterpart (since the speaker is male); a figure who, in the 1st century CE, carried less weight in matters of judgement.

So, the replacement is ok as a meditative exercise, but I wouldn't do it on a regular basis. It does water down the original message.

Answer 5

That is great point...Christ was the first person in his culture to speak of God as his father, and that was simply to exemplify the type of relationship that he had with this invisible spirit, like a loving father/son relationship.....Love can definitely be substituted for the word God/Father, and that is exactly what Christ meant.

Answer 6

The message remains the same and choosing the word Love makes the message more easily heard by non religious people or religious people who believe that the "father/child" relationship model is in error.

Answer 7

I am SOOO not going to read the Bible like a piece of assigned text for 2 lousy points on Yahoo.

You better find a better way to convert there, Mel.

Answer 8

Better excercise:

Substitute "Me" or "I" for "God". This substitution is just as valid as yours. Jesus claimed to be God (part of his trinity), so was therefore refering to himself when he referred to God. Do the substitutions, and now you see the rantings of a delussional Narcissist, not a Messiah.

Answer 9

Thank you for your challenge. It is good for us to keep learning and growing in Him. I see with this that God is Love and Love really is God, Isn't it a WONDERFUL thing to be loved by God so much?

Answer 10

Shhhhhhhh! You keep breaking the bubble of American bible thumpers who think the MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE is that we can hate people who are different than ourself.

If people in this country had the guts to see this fallacy, Americans wouldn't be the SPOILED BRATS that they are.